[RFC : xdg_surface_present() - take 2

[Bill Spitzak]

On 03/03/2015 04:25 PM, Manuel Bachmann wrote:
> Hi Bill, and thanks a lot for your comments,
>
> "What about "raise"?"
>
> I think the issue with "raise" was the same that with "set_unminimized"
> or "activate" ; it gives the false impression that the surface will
> consistently be brought to the foreground (whereas it depends on many
> things, and will in fact be rare).

I understand, but I am not sure if making up bogus names for requests is 
the best way to do this. I would prefer is Wayland users just knew that 
all requests may be ignored or do something different. They are called 
"requests" and not "commands" for a reason.

My primary reason for a "raise" request is so that a client has a clear 
way to *NOT* raise itself (by not sending it). I have not been able to 
come up with an alternative that has as little latency as this. It is 
true that people probably see this idea and think "clients will be able 
to pop to the top at any time" and this may be why there is so much 
objection to it.

If calling this "present" rather than "raise" will get around this 
objection that may be a good start. I do think this request can be 
reused for the raise on click behavior.